Leonardo Petrini

dblp:271/0552 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Learning theory · 50% Representation and self-supervised learning · 27% Deep learning architectures and training · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization error
1.122022
Learning sparse features can lead to overfitting in neural networks · NeurIPS 2022
Relative stability toward diffeomorphisms indicates performance in deep nets · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning
sparse coding
0.612022
Learning sparse features can lead to overfitting in neural networks · NeurIPS 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

random feature kernel · 0.6neural tangent kernel · 0.6maximum-entropy distribution on diffeomorphisms · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Learning sparse features can lead to overfitting in neural networks
abstract
It is widely believed that the success of deep networks lies in their ability to learn a meaningful representation of the features of the data. Yet, understanding when and how this feature learning improves performance remains a challenge: for example, it is beneficial for modern architectures trained to classify images, whereas it is detrimental for fully-connected networks trained for the same task on the same data. Here we propose an explanation for this puzzle, by showing that feature learning can perform worse than lazy training (via random feature kernel or the NTK) as the former can lead to a sparser neural representation. Although sparsity is known to be essential for learning anisotropic data, it is detrimental when the target function is constant or smooth along certain directions of input space. We illustrate this phenomenon in two settings: (i) regression of Gaussian random functions on the $d$-dimensional unit sphere and (ii) classification of benchmark datasets of images. For (i), we compute the scaling of the generalization error with number of training points, and show that methods that do not learn features generalize better, even when the dimension of the input space is large. For (ii), we show empirically that learning features can indeed lead to sparse and thereby less smooth representations of the image predictors. This fact is plausibly responsible for deteriorating the performance, which is known to be correlated with smoothness along diffeomorphisms.
Leonardo Petrini, Francesco Cagnetta, Eric Vanden-Eijnden, Matthieu Wyart
NeurIPS1
2021 Relative stability toward diffeomorphisms indicates performance in deep nets
abstract
Understanding why deep nets can classify data in large dimensions remains a challenge. It has been proposed that they do so by becoming stable to diffeomorphisms, yet existing empirical measurements support that it is often not the case. We revisit this question by defining a maximum-entropy distribution on diffeomorphisms, that allows to study typical diffeomorphisms of a given norm. We confirm that stability toward diffeomorphisms does not strongly correlate to performance on benchmark data sets of images. By contrast, we find that the stability toward diffeomorphisms relative to that of generic transformations $R_f$ correlates remarkably with the test error $\epsilon_t$. It is of order unity at initialization but decreases by several decades during training for state-of-the-art architectures. For CIFAR10 and 15 known architectures, we find $\epsilon_t\approx 0.2\sqrt{R_f}$, suggesting that obtaining a small $R_f$ is important to achieve good performance. We study how $R_f$ depends on the size of the training set and compare it to a simple model of invariant learning.
Leonardo Petrini, Alessandro Favero, Mario Geiger, Matthieu Wyart
NeurIPS1